[IPython-dev] IPython development: course adjustment required

Johann Cohen-Tanugi cohen@slac.stanford....
Mon Jun 2 04:04:00 CDT 2008


hi there,
I am even more a spectator than John, but I fully concur with the 
conclusions that incrementing ipy0 is the right approach. I have been 
downloading both versions of ipython in order to check where were the 
features I needed or wanted to explore, and the parallelism is certainly 
not available to any ipython user as it stands now. I somewhat 
sheepishly asked in this list a few weeks ago why there were no ipython1 
executable  to try out the corresponding features!
You might even gain in developer's base by proceeding this way ;)

So, +1 big time on reconsidering developing ipy1 within ipy0!
best,
Johann

Fernando Perez wrote:
> [ Folks: this message was sent to ipython-dev, where  the bulk of the
> discussion  is likely to take place.  But I want to make sure all
> users see it, and everyone's comments are welcome]
>
> Hi all,
>
> after much thought and hand-wringing, Brian and I would like to bring
> up an idea for a change of plans in the development process that will
> hopefully make us all happier, more efficient, and will lead to more
> usable code sooner, which is after all what we want.  Please pitch in
> with any comments you may have, ideas, dissent, etc.
>
> The current ipython development process is, we think, far less
> efficient than it could be.  Coupled with the fact that we have a
> rather small core team, this is leading to sometimes near paralysis.
> It is particularly unfair to Ville, who is tasked with maintaining an
> actively (and very widely) used project on a codebase with no clear
> future, and yet we have in ipython1 a codebase with split-personality
> disorder: lovely parallel computing interfaces but a bunch of "we'll
> get there soon" components that are all half-finished.
>
> In all this, Brian and Min try to push ip1 forward, Barry Wark works
> on Cocoa, Laurent works on the WX sell, Ondrej helps us with docs but
> that work is half-repeated in ip0 and ip1, etc.  And in the meantime,
> I'm feeling like I'm straddling a chasm (ip0-ip1) that keeps on
> growing wider, with the so far unfulfilled promised of building a
> bridge across it, and no realistic plan for such a bridge to really be
> built any time soon.  I still come back to issues with ip0 on
> occasion, and I try to work on ip1, but the split is too much for my
> limited time.  This has left me personally disenchanted with the
> project, feeling that I'm not really doing anything of quality on any
> front.
>
> So our current rethinking is: forge ahead with what we've been calling
> IPython0, and begin integrating the various key (and functional)
> components of IPython1 into it one by one.  The IPython0/1 split will
> end, and we will use all the good pieces of IPython1 to add
> functionality to ip0 without losing its current features.  At each 0.X
> release we'll clearly document any api breakage that might happen.
>
> This would bring us a number of benefits:
>
>  * We would be forced to only commit _finished_ stuff to ipython0
> because otherwise there will be lots of pissed off IPython0 users.
>
>  * We go from a situation where few people are trying our new code, to
> one where thousands of people are trying it.
>
>  * If we moved stuff in IPython.* -> IPython.core.*, we could then
> move things in ipython1.kernel.* -> IPython.kernel.*.  It one simple
> step, _every_ IPython user has parallel computing at their finger
> tips.  With our current approach, the parallel computing stuff will
> always be "over there" for your average IPython user and won't be used
> until ipython1 is a full replacement for ipython0.
>
>  * It would be sooo much simpler to manage one code base and documentation set.
>
>  * It would be much easier to explain to people that state of ipython.
>  "IPython is just IPython and now it has parallel computing"  The
> ambitious plans for refactoring, notebooks, frontends are underway,
> but IPython is still just IPython.
>
>  * The parallel computing stuff would instantly make it into all the
> Linux distros.
>
>  * Design problems will emerge much faster as we will always have a
> completely working terminal based IPython to test everything on.
> Things like -pylab can't be broken, not even for a second.  Whereas in
> ipython1, we are a long way off from even thinking about such things.
>
>  * We don't have to handle the questions like "I want to implement
> such and such in IPython, should I use ipython0 or ipython1"
>
>  * Our entire combined effort (limited as it may be, we have some
> great people on board) can be focused on a single problem, and we can
> all trust that we're working together for the same goal.
>
>
> In retrospect, I take full blame for any mistakes that I pushed for.
> While having a clean slate for thinking IPython1 ideas was probably
> beneficial, and none of that work is going to be lost (we'll just fold
> it piece by piece into the trunk), some of my ideas led to this
> paralysis.  Live and learn.
>
> So, any comments?  We'd like to move forward *quickly* with this idea.
> We'd try to make a series of much more frequent releases, one for each
> key component we add in, so that little by little the baby can
> actually grow.   There will be an initial period where I would prepare
> the ground in ip0 for the ip1 components to land in while Brian
> finishes a couple of things he has in his local branch, but we're
> talking a couple of weeks, not years.
>
> Cheers,
>
> f
> _______________________________________________
> IPython-user mailing list
> IPython-user@scipy.org
> http://lists.ipython.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-user
>   


More information about the IPython-dev mailing list